FAAC Mobility Services NtK

RereyMuetre

Thanks, I will try an IAS appeal.
Just a quick query before doing so. The NtK states a Parking charge of £60 has been incurred (then goes on to say please pay £100, reduced to £60 within 14 days), but Railway Byelaw 14 signs at the station state a Penalty charge of £100, reduced to £50 within 14 days..

It's the difference between Railway £50 and Operator £60 charges I'm querying. Where byelaws are in place, does a parking operator have the authority to over-rule what the byelaws say?

RereyMuetre

              

Byelaw 14 sign.

RereyMuetre

Operator Sign: These two signs are side-by-side.

Coupon-mad

Oooh now that is a good point and evidence to include in the IAS appeal. The PCN issued by these agents offered the wrong discount amount, therefore making it impossible to pay £50 as offered on the Byelaws sign. Thus voiding the landowner authority from LNER, whose name appears on the top right of the red & white sign and who are the principal in the alleged contract. FAAC have no standing and issued a PCN for the wrong amount.

The small print - bottom right on the red sign - also says the 'driver' is liable (I think?) which also conflicts with Railway Byelaws which say the owner is liable. 

RereyMuetre

I've drafted an appeal. But more musings, now I've studied a little more. Does the railway byelaw always trump civil contract breach? 
I'm looking at the exact wording of byelaw 14, which states " The owner of any motor vehicle.......may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area". 

Penalty is what I'm looking at. The landowner / railway company can issue a penalty, but the civil enforcement company cannot. 
I don't see anywhere in the railway byelaw that an agent of the landowner can sue for breach of contract, and of course the agent can't issue a penalty. 

Am I reading too much into this? 

Coupon-mad

No you are right to question that but if this is first stage appeal, save most of it for later.

RereyMuetre

Well, an update.
The Independent Appeals Service rejected my appeal. The operator did not offer any prima facie case, other than the alleged vehicle entered and exited the car park at xxx times. Literally one sentence. They did not acknowledge, challenge or counter any of the points I raised. They did upload some documentation, more on that below.

Despite no challenge from the PPC, the adjudicator decided that:
 - As I (the registered keeper) offered no conclusive evidence that I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time, I was assumed to be the driver under ELLIOTT v LOAKE 1982, and therefore the PPC had the right to pursue me.
 - The signs displaying the railway byelaws, LNER as the operator and differing fines to the PPC was not sufficient evidence that railway byelaws were in place.
 - There was no response to the point I raised that the NtK did not make clear the PPC had the right to recover anything from the RK, should the driver not be identified, and therefore the NtK was non-compliant with POFA and thus improperly issued.
 - The adjudicator had seen the signage at the station and was satisfied it was sufficient. No mention of the fact it was all unlit and it was very dark and none of it was readable from the drivers seat (the driver was a blue badge holder, wheelchair user). The image of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park uploaded by the PPC illustrated that it was pitch black outside, I pointed this out but nothing in the adjudication. I could not access the signage the adjudicator saw, the links to the uploads by the PPC all led to Error 404s. I screenshot all of these links to prove they were not available to me, which I included in my response to the PPC prima facie case.

Worryingly, the PPC had uploaded a 'NtK Reminder' letter they claim to have sent. I have not received this, and to date have had zero other correspondence from them. This concerns me, I remember lots of cases from the old PePiPoo forum of motorists hearing nothing until there was a CCJ being enforced. 

Next steps, I don't know. Wait I suppose.

Coupon-mad

Despite no challenge from the PPC, the adjudicator decided that:
 - As I (the registered keeper) offered no conclusive evidence that I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time, I was assumed to be the driver under ELLIOTT v LOAKE 1982, and therefore the PPC had the right to pursue me.
 - The signs displaying the railway byelaws, LNER as the operator and differing fines to the PPC was not sufficient evidence that railway byelaws were in place.
 - There was no response to the point I raised that the NtK did not make clear the PPC had the right to recover anything from the RK, should the driver not be identified, and therefore the NtK was non-compliant with POFA and thus improperly issued.
 - The adjudicator had seen the signage at the station and was satisfied it was sufficient. No mention of the fact it was all unlit and it was very dark and none of it was readable from the drivers seat (the driver was a blue badge holder, wheelchair user). The image of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park uploaded by the PPC illustrated that it was pitch black outside, I pointed this out but nothing in the adjudication. I could not access the signage the adjudicator saw, the links to the uploads by the PPC all led to Error 404s. I screenshot all of these links to prove they were not available to me, which I included in my response
 - The signs displaying the railway byelaws, LNER as the operator and differing fines to the PPC was not sufficient evidence that railway byelaws were in place.
 - There was no response to the point I raised that the NtK did not make clear the PPC had the right to recover anything from the RK, should the driver not be identified, and therefore the NtK was non-compliant with POFA and thus improperly issued.
 - The adjudicator had seen the signage at the station and was satisfied it was sufficient. No mention of the fact it was all unlit and it was very dark and none of it was readable from the drivers seat (the driver was a blue badge holder, wheelchair user). The image of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park uploaded by the PPC illustrated that it was pitch black outside, I pointed this out but nothing in the adjudication. I could not access the signage the adjudicator saw, the links to the uploads by the PPC all led to Error 404s. I screenshot all of these links to prove they were not available to me, which I included in my response

Usual apparently pro-PPC 'bent' decision. Nobody pays when they inevitably lose at IAS.

Please can you show the actual IAS joke decision as a screenshot so it is actual evidence that I can show to the government?

Thanks. Less than a week to go to do this public consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital MHCLG survey before the deadline.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY. Just days to go. Please join us by responding too!

But show us that IAS joke 'adjudication' and the supposed prima facie case of one sentence the PPC threw at it. And the 404 error evidence too. This one is appalling and I want to use it!

RereyMuetre

My appeal:

RereyMuetre

The PPC prima facie case: